smoking ban

[cowboy carl]

first of all ... why were the bbc saying "smoking *is* going to be banned in
a few years, when all that hasn't been released is a white paper?

parliament still has to vote on it, and if tories get in at the next
election (okay, big stretch of the imagination required ... but still) then
surely it's much less likely they would put it to a vote?

they seem to have changed their language to "may" not instead of "is", but
it's too late now, the damage has been done, i am annoyed.


and another point, if this is such a good idea, and bars and resturants are
all suddenly going to be much better places to go and thus much more
popular, why haven't bars and resturants done it themselves already?

the government has now banned, for example, a "smokers resturant", a
hypothetical place where people who actually might enjoy a cigarette after a
meal, and don't mind the smell of other people smoking, could do what they
want.

and i seriously don't understand the logic of the anti-smokers groups
wanting a complete ban, including in private members clubs. how would they
like it if the government banned something they and their friends did which
didn't actually harm anyone else, but some people just didn't like that they
did it. like, i dunno, ban plate smashing in greek resturants, or ban
eating smelly fish in their own homes, or ban macdonalds cos it's so
unhealthy.

grrrrrrr

cc

[jess]

Post by cowboy carl
like, i dunno, ban plate smashing
in greek resturants, or ban eating smelly fish in their own homes, or
ban macdonalds cos it's so unhealthy.

if you smash a plate, eat a smelly fish, or a macdonalds in front of me,
there is no chance that it will give me cancer.

[cowboy carl]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
like, i dunno, ban plate smashing
in greek resturants, or ban eating smelly fish in their own homes, or
ban macdonalds cos it's so unhealthy.

if you smash a plate, eat a smelly fish, or a macdonalds in front of me,
there is no chance that it will give me cancer.

if i smash a plate it might fly off and hurt you.

if i eat smelly fish it will bother you.

if i eat macdonalds, i will get fat and have heart problems and use the NHS
which is paid for by your tax money; i'll be the reason taxes are high.

why should you have to pay higher taxes to support my macdonalds addiction?

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl
if i eat macdonalds, i will get fat and have heart problems and use the NHS
which is paid for by your tax money; i'll be the reason taxes are high.

Nope, other way round. We all have to die at some time. So the cost to the
NHS of caring for us dying will always be there, whether we die of a
heart attack or cancer in middle age due to bad earing habits, smoking etc,
or die of pneumonia at the age of 100. However, if we die in middle age
we save the state an enormous amount of money due to never having to get
paid state pension, and due to the fact that people who die very old tend
to have had years of health care keeping them going as they get old.

So if the government wanted to save money long term, it'd be encouraging
people to smoke at eat the sort of stuff that gives you heart attacks.
One of the biggest factors forcing taxes up is people living longer.

Matthew Huntbach

[Matt]

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
like, i dunno, ban plate smashing
in greek resturants, or ban eating smelly fish in their own homes, or
ban macdonalds cos it's so unhealthy.

if you smash a plate, eat a smelly fish, or a macdonalds in front of me,
there is no chance that it will give me cancer.

Foxhunting.

Ignoring the animal rights issue, that was forced through undemocratically
and unnecessarily, in my opinion.

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matt

Post by jess

Post by cowboy carl
like, i dunno, ban plate smashing
in greek resturants, or ban eating smelly fish in their own homes, or
ban macdonalds cos it's so unhealthy.

if you smash a plate, eat a smelly fish, or a macdonalds in front of me,
there is no chance that it will give me cancer.

Foxhunting.
Ignoring the animal rights issue, that was forced through undemocratically
and unnecessarily, in my opinion.

It was 'forced' through democratically, but only because this is the only
time Labour backbencers can exert their class-war on the rest of society
(ignoring the fact that many hunters are traditional Labour voters).

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl
It was 'forced' through democratically, but only because this is the only
time Labour backbencers can exert their class-war on the rest of society
(ignoring the fact that many hunters are traditional Labour voters).

I can't help thinking that those people from the upper and upper-middle
classes who bleat on about this class war really have a grandiose view of
themselves. I'm sure most folk have more pressing concerns than the
pastimes and lifestyles of that section of the population. As an opponent
of blood sports (although obviously not a backbencher), I really am not
interested in how countryside dwellers wish to spend their time; my interest
is in the well-being on the animal. I'm sure that some parliamentarians
feel as I do in that sense.

And the majority of the 'rest of society' is actually in favour of a ban, so
it's not exactly 'exerting' or 'forcing', really.

Becky

[cowboy carl]

Post by Rebecca Loader

Post by cowboy carl
It was 'forced' through democratically, but only because this is the only
time Labour backbencers can exert their class-war on the rest of society
(ignoring the fact that many hunters are traditional Labour voters).

I can't help thinking that those people from the upper and upper-middle
classes who bleat on about this class war really have a grandiose view of
themselves. I'm sure most folk have more pressing concerns than the
pastimes and lifestyles of that section of the population. As an opponent
of blood sports (although obviously not a backbencher), I really am not
interested in how countryside dwellers wish to spend their time; my interest
is in the well-being on the animal. I'm sure that some parliamentarians
feel as I do in that sense.

There rarely a single reason for people to make decisions, and just as I am
sure the well-being of the animal does play a part in the decisions of
backbenchers, I am also convinced that at least some of them view this as
their chance to finally 'get one over' on the class that has been ruling the
country for the past few centiuries. Reform of the house of lords was kinda
screwed up, and it's taken over 7 years to get this far on fox hunting.

And even if the backbenchers aren't thinking that, they will be thinking
about how it will affect Labour voters in their area, and some core Labour
voters will be thinking that, so come the election, they can say to their
constitutents "look at me, I have strong beliefs, I voted for an outright
ban against these snobs who go around killing things on horses".


Few questions ... (I'm coming from a still-undecided but I like to oppose
bans point of view)


Firstly, animals hunt other animals all the time. Cats hunt mice and when
they catch them they rip them to peices. And birds. Cat's don't do it for
food either, they do it for fun.

Is it that humans are supposed to be somehow morally 'above' all this
behaviour? Because as I see it, there is nothing inherently wrong with
killing animals, whether it's for food, or pest control, as long as you
don't put them through more pain than is necessary.

I'm not sure about killing animals for "fun", but with fox-hunting there is
still the element of pest control, so the fox is gonna have to die anyway.

Is it then that it is wrong to take pleasure in the (necessary) killing of
an animal?

If that is the case, then isn't eating meat a form of pleasure (cos it's
tasty) and that is taking pleasure from the killing of an animal.

If that is an argument vegetarian animal-rights people use, then what do
non-vegetarian animal-rights people say? That it's wrong to take pleasure
from killing the animal, but after that it's okay?

Out of interest, does anyone know how many vegetarians there are in the
country/world? I seem to encounter them quite often, usually they are
girls.


I've forgotton my other question, but there are plenty of mini-questions
above, and I've run out of time cos I need to have a shower and get to uni
now.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl
There rarely a single reason for people to make decisions, and just as I am
sure the well-being of the animal does play a part in the decisions of
backbenchers, I am also convinced that at least some of them view this as
their chance to finally 'get one over' on the class that has been ruling the
country for the past few centiuries. Reform of the house of lords was kinda
screwed up, and it's taken over 7 years to get this far on fox hunting.
And even if the backbenchers aren't thinking that, they will be thinking
about how it will affect Labour voters in their area, and some core Labour
voters will be thinking that, so come the election, they can say to their
constitutents "look at me, I have strong beliefs, I voted for an outright
ban against these snobs who go around killing things on horses".

I think this is a right-wing fantasy, in which no matter how far to the
right the Labour Party moves, they're still supposed to be raving
extreme socialists fighting a class war underneath. Come off it - the
Labour Party these days practically worships businessmen and seems happy
to hand over what remaining aspects of our country lay in democratic
hands to them. Is this really the attitude of a party which thinks in
terms of "class war"?

Animal rights seems to play the part that abortion plays in US politics -
it's essentially a religious position, by which I mean something people
have taken as an absolute rather than a thing that can be argued with,
and while it may seem fairly trivial to those who don't hold to the
religious position, it's just about the most important issue to those who do.
See too how animal experimentation is being forced out of this country.
Looks like while the USA is going evangelical Prot, the UK is adopting
animal worship as its real religion.

I'm someone who doesn't hold to a religious position on hunting, and while
it's not something I would want to do, I wouldn't want to ban it. But I
find mysefl in a minority in my political party (LibDem) which holds to this
position, and I assure you the majority who oppose hunting do so entirely
on the grounds they feel it's unacceptable cruelty, and not on any
"class war" lines.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
There rarely a single reason for people to make decisions, and just as I am
sure the well-being of the animal does play a part in the decisions of
backbenchers, I am also convinced that at least some of them view this as
their chance to finally 'get one over' on the class that has been ruling the
country for the past few centiuries. Reform of the house of lords was kinda
screwed up, and it's taken over 7 years to get this far on fox hunting.
And even if the backbenchers aren't thinking that, they will be thinking
about how it will affect Labour voters in their area, and some core Labour
voters will be thinking that, so come the election, they can say to their
constitutents "look at me, I have strong beliefs, I voted for an outright
ban against these snobs who go around killing things on horses".

I think this is a right-wing fantasy, in which no matter how far to the
right the Labour Party moves, they're still supposed to be raving
extreme socialists fighting a class war underneath. Come off it - the
Labour Party these days practically worships businessmen and seems happy
to hand over what remaining aspects of our country lay in democratic
hands to them. Is this really the attitude of a party which thinks in
terms of "class war"?

I acknowledge that the government is right wing, but you just have to look
at the rebellions the government keeps facing to see that a lot of the
Labour party (what I call the 'core') *are* still socialist. Whilst they
probably don't make a majority of the party, they are still significant and
it is these that I am describing above.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
Animal rights seems to play the part that abortion plays in US politics -
it's essentially a religious position, by which I mean something people
have taken as an absolute rather than a thing that can be argued with, and
while it may seem fairly trivial to those who don't hold to the
religious position, it's just about the most important issue to those who do.
See too how animal experimentation is being forced out of this country.
Looks like while the USA is going evangelical Prot, the UK is adopting
animal worship as its real religion.
I'm someone who doesn't hold to a religious position on hunting, and while
it's not something I would want to do, I wouldn't want to ban it. But I
find mysefl in a minority in my political party (LibDem) which holds to this
position, and I assure you the majority who oppose hunting do so entirely
on the grounds they feel it's unacceptable cruelty, and not on any
"class war" lines.

I agree that the 'class war' argument isn't going to be the major one, but I
am not convinced it isn't playing a part in the decision making/opinion
forming.

Amoung people who don't really care either way about hunting (which I
suspect is the vast majority of ordinary people, and probably quite a few
MPs) the few arguments that are left which aren't related to animal welfare
are those of individual freedoms vs the government's right to impose moral
values on society.

And this is seen again in the smoking ban, and perhaps to a lesser extent
the gambling legislation.

cc

[Rebecca Loader]

Post by cowboy carl
And even if the backbenchers aren't thinking that, they will be thinking
about how it will affect Labour voters in their area, and some core Labour
voters will be thinking that, so come the election, they can say to their
constitutents "look at me, I have strong beliefs, I voted for an outright
ban against these snobs who go around killing things on horses".

I'm sure that, even if backbenchers are interested in fighting a class war
(and I'm with Matthew on this one), the public would be far less interested.
If they were impressed by an opponent of fox-hunting, it'd most likely be
because they regard it as cruel. Those Labour voters you mention as being
interested in getting one over on the toffs are probably going to vote
Labour whatever happens; the swing voters, whom these MPs would want to
attract, probably aren't interested in the legislation for its potential to
hurt the upper classes.

Post by cowboy carl
Is it that humans are supposed to be somehow morally 'above' all this
behaviour? Because as I see it, there is nothing inherently wrong with
killing animals, whether it's for food, or pest control, as long as you
don't put them through more pain than is necessary.
I'm not sure about killing animals for "fun", but with fox-hunting there is
still the element of pest control, so the fox is gonna have to die anyway.
Is it then that it is wrong to take pleasure in the (necessary) killing of
an animal?
If that is the case, then isn't eating meat a form of pleasure (cos it's
tasty) and that is taking pleasure from the killing of an animal.

These aren't questions that someone can answer on behalf of anyone but
themselves, of course. My answers would be as you'd expect - see below.

Post by cowboy carl
Out of interest, does anyone know how many vegetarians there are in the
country/world? I seem to encounter them quite often, usually they are
girls.

I've become vegetarian in a gradual process: I gave up meat about eighteen
months ago, gave up fish earlier this year, and try to avoid anything
derived from an animal's corpse (leather, rennet, gelatine). I eat dairy
products, although I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea - I don't
think I could cope with going fully vegan! Britain has a high proportion of
vegetarians compared with most other European countries, although it's
impossible to quantify just how many as people's definitions, applied to
their own habits, vary (although I understand that estimates are around 5-7%
of the population). However, apparently about 2/3 of vegetarians are female
and there are more vegetarians among younger age groups than older - neither
of which is terribly surprising. There are some interesting figures here:
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/statveg.html .

Becky